Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
April 8 forum- Where is the Peace Movement Going?
On April 8 the APSC hosted a forum to discuss the direction of the peace movement and to get the voices of the oppressed heard in that movement. Large rally organizers boycotted the forum, leaving the discussion rather one-sided. This article summarizes the points made and includes our statement.
Build Peace thru National Liberation and Self-determination
Oakland, April 8---The African People's Solidarity Committee (APSC) hosted a forum entitled "Where is the Peace Movement Going?" inviting all of the large mobilizers of recent demos as well as many smaller groups representing movements of the oppressed. Unfortunately, those who have been organizing most of the large demos such as International ANSWER, Direct Action to Stop the War, Global Exchange and other regional ad hoc groups chose not to attend, some of them reportedly boycotting the event. Those represented on the panel were the APSC and their guiding party the African People's Socialist Party (APSP), the Barrio Defense Committee, Filipinos for Global Justice (a coalition representing many Filipino groups in the Bay Area), the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL). In addition, Lance Corporal Steven Funk of the U$ Marine Corps managed to dodge jail for one more day to receive a standing ovation after declaring he has refused to report to duty in order to "take a stand against the u$ government."
The purpose of the forum was to get the voices of the oppressed heard within a white liberal dominated movement. Those who participated recognized the legitimacy and the need for revolutionary struggle against this system and the focus on national liberation struggles and self-determination was stressed throughout the evening. Missing from the forum were any representatives of the anarchist movement which is a potential ally to these struggles.
The APSC introduced the topic by focusing on their recent struggle with the April 5th Coalition in Oakland to get Chairman Omali Yeshitela of the APSP on the speakers list. Yeshitela, who spoke on the panel tonight, criticized the white leadership's audacity to select who is going to represent the Black struggle, and in doing so selecting movie stars. The Barrio Defense Committee stressed that police brutality and unlawful arrest have been regular occurrences in Oakland for decades and the so-called peace movement was not speaking out against that. While protesters were shot at outside the Oakland docks on Monday, Mexicans in West Oakland reported that their neighborhood was on lockdown, no one could move in or out. This is because the state knows who to fear when it comes to resistance movements. RAIL pointed out the hypocrisy of many in the mass rallies thanking the pigs for helping out, which is very telling of the relationship between the state and these marches. Everyone on the panel denounced pacifism as a phony philosophy. The APSC pointed out that pacifism steps in when Africans and Indigenous people begin to stand up for their self-determination as a fear mechanism within the white nation. Yeshitela summed up that "we have to convince the so-called peace movement to join the real peace movement that's been going on for 100's of years [referring to liberation struggles of the oppressed]." He recognized that while a majority of Blacks oppose the war only 20% of whites do, but this is not represented at the demos because, "Africans aren't gonna come out and join the struggle for peace for white people." When the war in Iraq ends this struggle does not end.
The following is a transcript of the statement presented by RAIL at this forum:
"Good evening. I am here tonight representing the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League. RAIL is a mass org lead by the Maoist Internationalist Movement or MIM. And I extend greetings from RAIL and MIM to all who are participating tonight. As [APSC rep] pointed out, I am disappointed that some of the groups who have been organizing these big rallies did not come out tonight. But I am glad to be here participating with all the groups that are here.
Oh, and I'd especially like to thank the APSC for putting this forum together, because I think it is a very important issue to be addressing.
We are here today because we want to maintain the momentum of this anti-war movement, and this means that we cannot let this become the basis for electing a democrat president in 2004.
When we are out there with the thousands of amerikans opposed to the war, we are not preaching to the choir. We are dealing with people who have come up with solutions such as impeaching Bush or praying for the lives of the innocent and who have continuously thanked the pigs for their assistance during rallies, like they helped us. (Interestingly, these people weren't around yesterday when the pigs repeatedly open-fired on us). Together with these people we represent a minority in the u$ that even oppose the war. Many of us here represent an even smaller minority who have been out here opposing imperialism in all its forms. This recent surge in anti-war sentiment is not a largely revolutionary movement. If we were marching 200,000 strong through San Francisco calling for the overthrow of imperialism we'd be in a whole different world right now.
We saw these divisions on March 20. We saw fellow protesters pulling newspaper racks back onto the sidewalk and warning us not to alienate people. And we saw drivers who were "also opposed to the war," but at that moment were more concerned with getting to work or being late to pick up their kid than they were about stopping the war. If not now when? When it's convenient? Well, thing is stopping the war is not convenient for Amerika. It is a fine privilege to be able to worry about being tardy for work when bombs are falling on the heads of innocent people. A fine privilege paid for by the blood and sweat of billions of oppressed people around the globe.
What we have to tell these liberals who "also oppose the war" is that war is inherent under imperialism. There is an economic explanation to all this killing. It is that our wealth here in the belly of the beast is taken from the exploited majority by force. That's war. In addition, as access to the exploited masses is fought over, wars develop between the exploiters. And amidst all this war the exploited fight back. And this is the war that we must support! For we are not pacifists, we want peace. And there can be no peace, without justice!
As this movement grows, our strategic stage in the struggle remains the same. We are in the belly of the imperialist beast where we face the strongest military in the world and live amongst one of the most reactionary nations of people. People in this country will benefit from this war just like they've been benefiting from war and exploitation since the founding of this nation. They know this and therefore they will not ally with the majority of the world who are fighting for a peaceful, harmonious society. People like to get on the megaphone and talk about how stupid George W. Bush is. Bush is not that stupid, Bush is doing what will benefit him and what will gain the support of his constituents - the majority of the amerikan people.
So as we recognize that peace cannot come under imperialism, we also recognize that we are not in a position to overthrow imperialism from within. Rather we must continue down the path of education, outreach and building support for a revolutionary solution to this system. The oppressed nations within this country are in a unique position of receiving many of the material benefits of imperialism while continuing to be targets of amerika's repression. The national identity of these nations that have a long history of being victimized by amerika remains a basis for revolutionary organizing, and we can see this in the groups represented here tonight. Meanwhile, despite their material interests, even white amerikans can be rallied around the concept that ending war will make everyone safer. But if we fool ourselves into believing that amerika will join us than we will burn out, and worse we will mislead the movement.
So our task is to reach out to our allies in this movement and those sitting on the sidelines who say they oppose the war to take a up a more revolutionary stance and to take a more active stance... [calls for local organizing efforts]... Thanks again for having us."
Oakland, April 8---The African People's Solidarity Committee (APSC) hosted a forum entitled "Where is the Peace Movement Going?" inviting all of the large mobilizers of recent demos as well as many smaller groups representing movements of the oppressed. Unfortunately, those who have been organizing most of the large demos such as International ANSWER, Direct Action to Stop the War, Global Exchange and other regional ad hoc groups chose not to attend, some of them reportedly boycotting the event. Those represented on the panel were the APSC and their guiding party the African People's Socialist Party (APSP), the Barrio Defense Committee, Filipinos for Global Justice (a coalition representing many Filipino groups in the Bay Area), the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL). In addition, Lance Corporal Steven Funk of the U$ Marine Corps managed to dodge jail for one more day to receive a standing ovation after declaring he has refused to report to duty in order to "take a stand against the u$ government."
The purpose of the forum was to get the voices of the oppressed heard within a white liberal dominated movement. Those who participated recognized the legitimacy and the need for revolutionary struggle against this system and the focus on national liberation struggles and self-determination was stressed throughout the evening. Missing from the forum were any representatives of the anarchist movement which is a potential ally to these struggles.
The APSC introduced the topic by focusing on their recent struggle with the April 5th Coalition in Oakland to get Chairman Omali Yeshitela of the APSP on the speakers list. Yeshitela, who spoke on the panel tonight, criticized the white leadership's audacity to select who is going to represent the Black struggle, and in doing so selecting movie stars. The Barrio Defense Committee stressed that police brutality and unlawful arrest have been regular occurrences in Oakland for decades and the so-called peace movement was not speaking out against that. While protesters were shot at outside the Oakland docks on Monday, Mexicans in West Oakland reported that their neighborhood was on lockdown, no one could move in or out. This is because the state knows who to fear when it comes to resistance movements. RAIL pointed out the hypocrisy of many in the mass rallies thanking the pigs for helping out, which is very telling of the relationship between the state and these marches. Everyone on the panel denounced pacifism as a phony philosophy. The APSC pointed out that pacifism steps in when Africans and Indigenous people begin to stand up for their self-determination as a fear mechanism within the white nation. Yeshitela summed up that "we have to convince the so-called peace movement to join the real peace movement that's been going on for 100's of years [referring to liberation struggles of the oppressed]." He recognized that while a majority of Blacks oppose the war only 20% of whites do, but this is not represented at the demos because, "Africans aren't gonna come out and join the struggle for peace for white people." When the war in Iraq ends this struggle does not end.
The following is a transcript of the statement presented by RAIL at this forum:
"Good evening. I am here tonight representing the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League. RAIL is a mass org lead by the Maoist Internationalist Movement or MIM. And I extend greetings from RAIL and MIM to all who are participating tonight. As [APSC rep] pointed out, I am disappointed that some of the groups who have been organizing these big rallies did not come out tonight. But I am glad to be here participating with all the groups that are here.
Oh, and I'd especially like to thank the APSC for putting this forum together, because I think it is a very important issue to be addressing.
We are here today because we want to maintain the momentum of this anti-war movement, and this means that we cannot let this become the basis for electing a democrat president in 2004.
When we are out there with the thousands of amerikans opposed to the war, we are not preaching to the choir. We are dealing with people who have come up with solutions such as impeaching Bush or praying for the lives of the innocent and who have continuously thanked the pigs for their assistance during rallies, like they helped us. (Interestingly, these people weren't around yesterday when the pigs repeatedly open-fired on us). Together with these people we represent a minority in the u$ that even oppose the war. Many of us here represent an even smaller minority who have been out here opposing imperialism in all its forms. This recent surge in anti-war sentiment is not a largely revolutionary movement. If we were marching 200,000 strong through San Francisco calling for the overthrow of imperialism we'd be in a whole different world right now.
We saw these divisions on March 20. We saw fellow protesters pulling newspaper racks back onto the sidewalk and warning us not to alienate people. And we saw drivers who were "also opposed to the war," but at that moment were more concerned with getting to work or being late to pick up their kid than they were about stopping the war. If not now when? When it's convenient? Well, thing is stopping the war is not convenient for Amerika. It is a fine privilege to be able to worry about being tardy for work when bombs are falling on the heads of innocent people. A fine privilege paid for by the blood and sweat of billions of oppressed people around the globe.
What we have to tell these liberals who "also oppose the war" is that war is inherent under imperialism. There is an economic explanation to all this killing. It is that our wealth here in the belly of the beast is taken from the exploited majority by force. That's war. In addition, as access to the exploited masses is fought over, wars develop between the exploiters. And amidst all this war the exploited fight back. And this is the war that we must support! For we are not pacifists, we want peace. And there can be no peace, without justice!
As this movement grows, our strategic stage in the struggle remains the same. We are in the belly of the imperialist beast where we face the strongest military in the world and live amongst one of the most reactionary nations of people. People in this country will benefit from this war just like they've been benefiting from war and exploitation since the founding of this nation. They know this and therefore they will not ally with the majority of the world who are fighting for a peaceful, harmonious society. People like to get on the megaphone and talk about how stupid George W. Bush is. Bush is not that stupid, Bush is doing what will benefit him and what will gain the support of his constituents - the majority of the amerikan people.
So as we recognize that peace cannot come under imperialism, we also recognize that we are not in a position to overthrow imperialism from within. Rather we must continue down the path of education, outreach and building support for a revolutionary solution to this system. The oppressed nations within this country are in a unique position of receiving many of the material benefits of imperialism while continuing to be targets of amerika's repression. The national identity of these nations that have a long history of being victimized by amerika remains a basis for revolutionary organizing, and we can see this in the groups represented here tonight. Meanwhile, despite their material interests, even white amerikans can be rallied around the concept that ending war will make everyone safer. But if we fool ourselves into believing that amerika will join us than we will burn out, and worse we will mislead the movement.
So our task is to reach out to our allies in this movement and those sitting on the sidelines who say they oppose the war to take a up a more revolutionary stance and to take a more active stance... [calls for local organizing efforts]... Thanks again for having us."
For more information:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/agitatio...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
why did act to stop the war not attend?
Hmmmm... this sounds familiar. A sectarian conflict within the movement between pacifists and violent revolutionaries; a question of whether whites should be allowed to stand next to their "oppressed" brethren and oppose the injustice of the system. I think I've heard this before (see: civil rights movement).
This is no time to start debating the virtue of violent reaction to the imperialist system. First off, the number of people that see a good in sustained violent action against the state are so few and so disjointed that any violent action would be destructive rather than constructive to your "movement." Secondly, alienating all but the most radical war opponents is not good policy. Look at the way that MLK, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela did it. They knew where everyone stood, yet they also knew that the more moderate opponents of the systems that they opposed were useful, even necessary, to the actual implementation and negotiation for whatever change they demanded. You will not overthrow the American imperialist system with violence. You may draw attention to the injustice of it with civil disobedience and continuous direct actions, but if you are envisioning a nationwide network of anti-imperialist radicals banding together to stand up for the oppressed in a violent and unified way, you are deluding yourself.
I am not preaching moderation, only realism. Nearly three-quarters of the population support this war now, meaning that nearly three-quarters of the population tolerate American imperialism as it is presented to them by the gov't and the media. There must be some ideological change before there can be a systematic change. This means drawing attention to the problem through creative/dramatic action.
You must consider that violence will villify you in the public's eyes, which hurts your cause. Non-violence, on the other hand, exhibits a certain strength of principle as well as making the representatives of the system victimizers, causing the public to empathize with the victims (opponents of the war, in this case). The fact that a picture of a girl, wounded in the attack on the protestors in Oakland a few days ago, was placed on the front page of the Chronicle is testament to that. You may have an aversion to pandering to the media, which panders to the public, but you shouldn't. This is the way it has always been done. MLK and John Lewis were very media savvy. They knew how to create the desired reaction in the American public as well as in the American gov't.
You may be angry at the moderation and lack of commitment you see in the protestors that attend the major demos. First off, you must realize that most of these are followers of a certain liberal ideology and if you are able to convince them of the justice of your cause, then they will follow you, too.
Secondly, as I said before, you must tolerate them as you attempt to spread whatever your agenda is. Sectarianism is not good to a peace movement. A tension of ideas, yes, but not an ultimate exclusion of the majority of those that might support you. Work within the movement rather than attempting to start a radical militia that will ultimately be defeated because of its exclusiveness.
Peace.
This is no time to start debating the virtue of violent reaction to the imperialist system. First off, the number of people that see a good in sustained violent action against the state are so few and so disjointed that any violent action would be destructive rather than constructive to your "movement." Secondly, alienating all but the most radical war opponents is not good policy. Look at the way that MLK, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela did it. They knew where everyone stood, yet they also knew that the more moderate opponents of the systems that they opposed were useful, even necessary, to the actual implementation and negotiation for whatever change they demanded. You will not overthrow the American imperialist system with violence. You may draw attention to the injustice of it with civil disobedience and continuous direct actions, but if you are envisioning a nationwide network of anti-imperialist radicals banding together to stand up for the oppressed in a violent and unified way, you are deluding yourself.
I am not preaching moderation, only realism. Nearly three-quarters of the population support this war now, meaning that nearly three-quarters of the population tolerate American imperialism as it is presented to them by the gov't and the media. There must be some ideological change before there can be a systematic change. This means drawing attention to the problem through creative/dramatic action.
You must consider that violence will villify you in the public's eyes, which hurts your cause. Non-violence, on the other hand, exhibits a certain strength of principle as well as making the representatives of the system victimizers, causing the public to empathize with the victims (opponents of the war, in this case). The fact that a picture of a girl, wounded in the attack on the protestors in Oakland a few days ago, was placed on the front page of the Chronicle is testament to that. You may have an aversion to pandering to the media, which panders to the public, but you shouldn't. This is the way it has always been done. MLK and John Lewis were very media savvy. They knew how to create the desired reaction in the American public as well as in the American gov't.
You may be angry at the moderation and lack of commitment you see in the protestors that attend the major demos. First off, you must realize that most of these are followers of a certain liberal ideology and if you are able to convince them of the justice of your cause, then they will follow you, too.
Secondly, as I said before, you must tolerate them as you attempt to spread whatever your agenda is. Sectarianism is not good to a peace movement. A tension of ideas, yes, but not an ultimate exclusion of the majority of those that might support you. Work within the movement rather than attempting to start a radical militia that will ultimately be defeated because of its exclusiveness.
Peace.
"Secondly, as I said before, you must tolerate them as you attempt to spread whatever your agenda is. Sectarianism is not good to a peace movement. A tension of ideas, yes, but not an ultimate exclusion of the majority of those that might support you. Work within the movement rather than attempting to start a radical militia that will ultimately be defeated because of its exclusiveness."
actually the uhuru movement and many others who are not pacifists and who stand for national liberation are always willing to work with anyone in principled coalition. we will join with pacifists and anyone who stands against the war in iraq. history shows however, "pacifists" use their pacifism as a justification to avoid working with those who stand for national liberation.
this is the real sectarianism; and hypocrisy, as it tolerates colonial violence while wielding "pacifism" like a club against non-white peoples.
actually the uhuru movement and many others who are not pacifists and who stand for national liberation are always willing to work with anyone in principled coalition. we will join with pacifists and anyone who stands against the war in iraq. history shows however, "pacifists" use their pacifism as a justification to avoid working with those who stand for national liberation.
this is the real sectarianism; and hypocrisy, as it tolerates colonial violence while wielding "pacifism" like a club against non-white peoples.
I'm not part of ANSWER, so I don't know why they didn't send anyone. It could well be that it relates to comments about the peace movement's "white leadership's [with the] audacity to select who is going to represent the Black struggle, and in doing so selecting movie stars" and that that leadership is interested in a pre-911 status quo.
The flyer outlining the arguments around Omali Yeshitela speaking on April 5 repeated more or less this canard, and included a picture of Danny Glover as if he were the only African-American speaker that ANSWER, NION or the others had permitted to speak.
For those of us who've been at the demos, that's obviously a gross distortion.
For those of us who know some of the history behind NION and ANSWER, the claim that the leadership of the peace movement wants a return to the pre-911 status quo is also a gross distortion.
However, the specific context of April 5 is important, and it really is too bad that by using the photo of Glover - who has spoken at ANSWER events, true - the flyer made the issues around April 5 much *less* clear.
I've read more about the April 5 coalition this week, and while ANSWER and NION were involved, the April 5 people start their list of endorsers with a ton of elected officials, people who have not resigned their positions in disgust yet, as have a number of State Department employees.
I wish that the argument around the April 5 Coalition was more carefully distinguished from the groups who've been organizing the national and international actions. I see much more clearly now how very mainstream much of the April 5 Coalition is.
Unfortunately, while it was situated in the specific context of April 5, the flyer appeared to be a very broad attack on some of the core groups who've been doing the organizing, taking the heat, getting the nasty writeups in not only the mainstream but also the liberal media (eg, Salon slamming ANSWER just ahead of the Feb. rallies.)
And NION and ANSWER have been including a very broad range of people covering a lot of important topics at their events. I've been pleased to see ANSWER make time for presentations on the Cuban 5 at their events. That is not a hallmark of a group that is disinterested in radical change.
(And no, Matthew, the fact that I've now criticized, what, three lines of the flyer or four, plus the use of a photo, does not mean that I agree with everything else in it - but it doesn't mean I disagree with everything in it, either. I do wonder why I saw the flyer at all, though, given that your speaker wound up on the program, and why you reposted it here, though. The folks I work with don't hand out flyers when we disagree with one another; we have it out, or don't have it out, and move on in a united front once it's settled.)
The flyer outlining the arguments around Omali Yeshitela speaking on April 5 repeated more or less this canard, and included a picture of Danny Glover as if he were the only African-American speaker that ANSWER, NION or the others had permitted to speak.
For those of us who've been at the demos, that's obviously a gross distortion.
For those of us who know some of the history behind NION and ANSWER, the claim that the leadership of the peace movement wants a return to the pre-911 status quo is also a gross distortion.
However, the specific context of April 5 is important, and it really is too bad that by using the photo of Glover - who has spoken at ANSWER events, true - the flyer made the issues around April 5 much *less* clear.
I've read more about the April 5 coalition this week, and while ANSWER and NION were involved, the April 5 people start their list of endorsers with a ton of elected officials, people who have not resigned their positions in disgust yet, as have a number of State Department employees.
I wish that the argument around the April 5 Coalition was more carefully distinguished from the groups who've been organizing the national and international actions. I see much more clearly now how very mainstream much of the April 5 Coalition is.
Unfortunately, while it was situated in the specific context of April 5, the flyer appeared to be a very broad attack on some of the core groups who've been doing the organizing, taking the heat, getting the nasty writeups in not only the mainstream but also the liberal media (eg, Salon slamming ANSWER just ahead of the Feb. rallies.)
And NION and ANSWER have been including a very broad range of people covering a lot of important topics at their events. I've been pleased to see ANSWER make time for presentations on the Cuban 5 at their events. That is not a hallmark of a group that is disinterested in radical change.
(And no, Matthew, the fact that I've now criticized, what, three lines of the flyer or four, plus the use of a photo, does not mean that I agree with everything else in it - but it doesn't mean I disagree with everything in it, either. I do wonder why I saw the flyer at all, though, given that your speaker wound up on the program, and why you reposted it here, though. The folks I work with don't hand out flyers when we disagree with one another; we have it out, or don't have it out, and move on in a united front once it's settled.)
In the Spanish Civil War, the Stalinists were so busy fighting the Trotskyists that the Nationalists under Franco kicked both their butts!
Some things never change. You will always fail.
Ahahahahahahahahaha
Some things never change. You will always fail.
Ahahahahahahahahaha
nowhere in the paper do we suggest danny glover is the only "african american speaker" on ANSWER ort NION programs. our point is there is no speakers representing the AFRICAN COMMUNITY. that is the point. the point is not how many hand-picked "people of color" end up on the program at ANSWER or NION demos.
we posted that paper because when we provided a speaker who truly does reflect the African community, he was boycotted and censored. when we struggled around this we were slandared, and the whole question of who is censoring who was insidiously reversed. it was an effort to provide a principled and political explanation for these problems.
speaking of principled, it would have been good for answer -- and also you rogue -- to have come out to the meeting to raise criticisms in a productive fashion, instead of at best, posting anonymously on the internet.
we stand in solidarity with ANSWER against red-baiting or palestine-baiting reactionary attacks. at the same time, we are sharply critical that ANSWER does everything in its power to prevent an independent organized african community from having a voice at their programs.
we posted that paper because when we provided a speaker who truly does reflect the African community, he was boycotted and censored. when we struggled around this we were slandared, and the whole question of who is censoring who was insidiously reversed. it was an effort to provide a principled and political explanation for these problems.
speaking of principled, it would have been good for answer -- and also you rogue -- to have come out to the meeting to raise criticisms in a productive fashion, instead of at best, posting anonymously on the internet.
we stand in solidarity with ANSWER against red-baiting or palestine-baiting reactionary attacks. at the same time, we are sharply critical that ANSWER does everything in its power to prevent an independent organized african community from having a voice at their programs.
the paper's criticism, while detailing specifics around the April 5th, definitely extends to ANSWER, NION and BAUAW. The question is not how "diverse" we are, or how "radical" we envision change. the question is: Is the question of national liberation for colonized peoples on the program? or is it censored from the program?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network